Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

[HoustonRaven]

You are missing my point, perhaps I am being too vague. I am no talking about any specific player; I am talking about "the players," the collective. If the Skins spend full cap, full cap, full cap, $50M more than that in a year where there is no cap by rule, full cap, full cap, etc, that is $50M more compensation that went from owner to player than a string of full caps without the extra $50M. Some player got the money; in terms of accounting you could view it several different ways, but what you cannot do is ignore the fact that when all was said and done, "the players" as the collective received $50M more money because of the Skins overspending in 2010.



Yes. I precisely included the word "want" which you failed to include when you responded to the point. And the word "want" is relevant, as I explained.

I see now. Gotcha.

[arnie_uk]

if im understanding ravour right, the skins and cowboys, still spent the same amount of money in the uncapped year and the following 2 years, as the would have if they didnt dump the salaries, the only difference being the cap hits from the next couple of capped years was greatly reduced because the cap was all moved into the uncapped year. They didnt spend any less or more money, in the 2/3 year period, they spent the same, just more of it in the uncapped year, which a rich team like they could afford to do while a small market team couldnt afford and so they gained competitive advantage by freeing up cap space when the cap came back into affect.

Its not about the money paid, its the affect the bringing forward of paying said money, into the uncapped year, had on future capped years cap space.

No. They did not get one dime more than their contract allowed. They simply got it all at one time.



That's precisely what you said in post #79:

[HoustonRaven]

if im understanding ravour right, the skins and cowboys, still spent the same amount of money in the uncapped year and the following 2 years, as the would have if they didnt dump the salaries, the only difference being the cap hits from the next couple of capped years was greatly reduced because the cap was all moved into the uncapped year. They didnt spend any less or more money, in the 2/3 year period, they spent the same, just more of it in the uncapped year, which a rich team like they could afford to do while a small market team couldnt afford and so they gained competitive advantage by freeing up cap space when the cap came back into affect.

Its not about the money paid, its the affect the bringing forward of paying said money, into the uncapped year, had on future capped years cap space.

Exactly

[Haloti92]

They spent $50M more in total, as I said. When you pay $50M to "dump cap" then spend the full cap after that, you have paid your players an actual $50M more than had you not done anything special or unordinary.

The NFLPA actually sued over this, but then dropped the suit after reaching an accomodation with the league, part of which was that any cap penalty to the Skins and Cowboys (which would also, by itself, reduce the collective player compensation back to where it would have been had those teams not acted in the way that they did) would be added back across the rest of the teams. The extra cap money the Ravens are getting and will spend on actual players this next year would not exist had not the Skins/Cowboys done what they did. In other words, the extra compensation that I am talking about and which clearly exists was not removed from the system, and I am positive the NFLPA would not have signed off otherwise, but rather left in the system but spread around.

My point is that if more teams did what the Cowboys and Skins did then "players" would have received even more money.

I have no sympathy for the Cowboys or Skins, inasmuch as they should have known how this would turn out. But I do think that the way this went down isn't a straightforward case of "cheating" or anything, but rather an internal fight between owners, which the NFLPA used in their own way in the negotiations over the CBA.

[HoustonRaven]

They spent $50M more in total, as I said. When you pay $50M to "dump cap" then spend the full cap after that, you have paid your players an actual $50M more than had you not done anything special or unordinary.

The NFLPA actually sued over this, but then dropped the suit after reaching an accomodation with the league, part of which was that any cap penalty to the Skins and Cowboys (which would also, by itself, reduce the collective player compensation back to where it would have been had those teams not acted in the way that they did) would be added back across the rest of the teams. The extra cap money the Ravens are getting and will spend on actual players this next year would not exist had not the Skins/Cowboys done what they did. In other words, the extra compensation that I am talking about and which clearly exists was not removed from the system, and I am positive the NFLPA would not have signed off otherwise.

I have not seen or heard of one incident where the players (or any one player) got one penny more than their contract amount.

If you have a credible source that says otherwise, I'd like to see it.

[srobert96]

They spent $50M more in total, as I said. When you pay $50M to "dump cap" then spend the full cap after that, you have paid your players an actual $50M more than had you not done anything special or unordinary.

The NFLPA actually sued over this, but then dropped the suit after reaching an accomodation with the league, part of which was that any cap penalty to the Skins and Cowboys (which would also, by itself, reduce the collective player compensation back to where it would have been had those teams not acted in the way that they did) would be added back across the rest of the teams. The extra cap money the Ravens are getting and will spend on actual players this next year would not exist had not the Skins/Cowboys done what they did. In other words, the extra compensation that I am talking about and which clearly exists was not removed from the system, and I am positive the NFLPA would not have signed off otherwise, but rather left in the system but spread around.

My point is that if more teams did what the Cowboys and Skins did then "players" would have received even more money.

I have no sympathy for the Cowboys or Skins, inasmuch as they should have known how this would turn out. But I do think that the way this went down isn't a straightforward case of "cheating" or anything, but rather an intercine fight between owners, which the NFLPA used in their own way in the negotiations over the CBA.

You are right the extra money was not removed from the system but spread around to other teams. That is why the NFLPA agreed to it. All the NFL did was restore the competitive balance moving forward as opposed to letting the Cowboys and Redskins have a ton of cap space because they are wealthy enough to dump salary in an uncapped year.

More teams could not do this because most teams could not afford to do it. Basically the Redskins and Cowboys were using the uncapped year to circumvent future salary caps not to improve their team in the uncapped year. If they signed players to 1 year massive deals this would not be an issue. They basically pulled salary they would have owed forward and dumped it into the current year. They did not pay the players any more than they would have in a capped year they just put it all in one year. The NFL which thrives on having a level playing field took action to level it under the new CBA.

[Haloti92]

I have not seen or heard of one incident where the players (or any one player) got one penny more than their contract amount.

If you have a credible source that says otherwise, I'd like to see it.

The contract amounts are irrelevant, it very simple if you look at the whole and not get into the accounting. The Skins wrote $50M more than everyone else in checks in 2010. Unless they planned to or are forced to write $50M less in checks going forward, the players come out ahead by $50M.

[HoustonRaven]

The contract amounts are irrelevant, it very simple if you look at the whole and not get into the accounting. The Skins wrote $50M more than everyone else in checks in 2010. Unless they planned to or are forced to write $50M less in checks going forward, the players come out ahead by $50M.

That's simply not accurate. Haynesworth never got a dime more than his contract nor did any other Skins players. No player since has received more than their contract amount.

All that was done was a back loading of money they would have spent regardless into an uncapped year, thus freeing up cap money in future years.

[festivus]

The contract amounts are irrelevant, it very simple if you look at the whole and not get into the accounting.

I can see how it is very simple, if you aren't looking at the accounting.

[NCRAVEN]

Yahoo_Bang_Head_Emoticon_by_WhiteDragon1983.gif

[HoustonRaven]

If you're employer plans on paying you $50,000 a year for the next 3 years, but then instead pays you $150,000 in the first year, they did not spend any more money on you than they already would have.

They simply paid everything at once.

That's what the Redskins and Cowboys did and got caught.

[HoustonRaven]

Yahoo_Bang_Head_Emoticon_by_WhiteDragon1983.gif

Tell me about it.